Sunday editorial: At last, an election
William Hogarth: The Election I: An election entertainment (1754)
As near as we can tell, the 2008 presidential election first was referenced in the Post-Dispatch on Sept. 23, 2003, when then-New York Times columnist William Safire threw out the first name: Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.
A month later, we printed a column by George Will of the Washington Post that touted then-Colorado Gov. Bill Owens as a Republican nominee in 2008. A year later, the floodgates had opened wide as such worthies as Sam Brownback, Wesley Clark, Rick Santorum, Tom Vilsack and a dozen others began claiming their moment in the sun.
Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona always was a part of the mix, particularly after he mended fences with President George W. Bush in June 2004. That same month, Sarah Palin was chairing the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission, and Barack Obama was leading a fight against new federal overtime rules in the Illinois state Senate. The Great Mentioner (in Russell Baker’s classic phrase) didn’t utter his name until his Democratic convention keynote speech on July 27, 2004.
So while it may seem that John McCain and Barack Obama have been running for president forever, it’s actually been only 51 months.
And now the end is near. We endorsed both men in their respective primaries in Illinois and Missouri in February. We endorsed Mr. Obama in Tuesday’s election, believing the 47-year-old junior senator from Illinois has the ability to become a transformative figure in what figures to be a difficult period in America’s history.
Still, if Campaign 2008 proves anything, it’s how useless long-range political forecasts can be. Events have a way of intruding. During the long campaign, Mr. Obama and his advisers have proved themselves to be far more able than Mr. McCain and his to adapt and react to changing events, whether it be the rants of his former pastor, attack politics or the credit crisis on Wall Street.
Of the two candidates, Mr. McCain has had the tougher slog. Not only did he have to separate himself from his past support for the policies of an unpopular Republican president, but he also had to separate himself from his own record as a party maverick, even as he embraced the label. No wonder his campaign has seemed stuck in a perpetual identity crisis.
Mr. Obama hasn’t had to run against himself. But he did have to run against Ms. Clinton and the legacy of former President Bill Clinton, which seemed to grow every time George W. Bush opened his mouth. The Clinton machine tempered Mr. Obama in ways that not even the worst efforts of the Republican attack machine (“palling around with terrorists”) could dent.
For all of this, Mr. Obama could not have come this far without the greatest fundraising machine in the history of politics. As of two weeks ago, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, he had raised $640 million from more than 3.1 million individual donors; in September, when he raised $150 million, his average donation was $86.
The implications of this are clear: Without a system of publicly financed campaigns, competent candidates who are not charismatic fundraisers will start in a deep hole. Whether this is good for democracy is something the next president should consider.
My wife has worked as an election judge at St. Louis City polling places for many years. She will be an election judge this Tuesday and is very worried that this election could be stolen.
:
:
” Without a system of publicly financed campaigns… ”
The Post just couldn’t bring themselves to criticize Obama for going back on his documented word that he would take public financing, eh?
Way to take a stand.
===
Bill: I have worked as a poll supervisor in the county for a number of years, and actually, I’m confident in the MO program. There are quirks and loopholes that let some bad things happen, but they seldom have happened all at once, and as far as the process that is used in MO, I’m worried that your wife might be right - in other states, but I’m pretty sure that in MO, it is a good process. The most important thing is for every poll worker to be vigilant in enforcing all of the rules of voting, and not just the ones that seem to make sense. Even some of the “stupid” rules are built in as checks for the smart ones. And then we can only hope that the job we have done is the best possible job, regardless of the results.
BobZ. : HAHAHAHAHA - The Post-Democrat is really bad this year. Joseph Pulitzer called them to cancel his subscription. He would not be happy with the way the collective has worked there this year. There are, however, a couple, maybe a few, pretty good people that work there, it seems, and hopefully, they will live longer and work that much harder for a fair and balanced approach to reporting.
I was particularly fond of their endorsement of Nixon. They said that they have never in their contemporary history had more disputes - even with Matt Blunt - than with Nixon, but that they would endorse him because if he gets elected to a higher office, he might become “the New Nixon”. I found that so incredible that I actually went back and listened to all of the debates, and did quite a bit more reading from KC and the outstate areas regarding their takes on Hulfshof - and Nixon. I just can’t believe that they said that, though. P-D:”The guy just totally bites, but because he’s a Democrat, he might just become a different person if you help him reach his aspiration of a higher office”. WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? I could have written a better endorsement for Nixon, and I’m a Republican, for crying out loud! I think Nixon should be embarrased more than happy to have that endorsement.
In the end, I did vote for Nixon, because I thnk Hulshof is closer to Bush, and I’m not a big fan of Bush. I am a HUGE Mc Cain fan - he is NOT Bush, and I think that Nixon philosophically reaches closer to Mc Cain and the middle than he reaches in the directions of Bush or Obama. So kudos to the Post-Democrat for making it so obvious that people need to expand their horizons beyond the pages of their paper that many of us did. That’s a REALLY tough way to keep readership numbers up, though. It’s not like they are the Macy’s Santa telling people to go to other stores to find what they need - that only works in the movies. In real life, the rest of us try to provide what customers need in order to retain their business, and the more we go out of our way to do so, the more customers we get, and keep. Since the P-D has decided to bypass reporting and go straight to picking sides on a party-basis only, it seems to me that unless they can convince advertisers to spend an ungodly amount on ads for the few advertisers they can retain with such business savvy principle (which would probably be too capitalist for their platform), then they will soon be relegated to being one of the many other papers that are internet-only. How sad for St. Louis.
BobZ. - When a Democrat says he’ll take public financing, and then doesn’t, it isn’t a lie - it’s “doing what it takes to defeat moneyed Republican interests.” This is even true if he ends up spending many times more than his Republican opponent.
When a Republican says he’ll take public financing and does, it isn’t a remarkable sacrifice to keep the money out of politics - it’s either “mooching off the public to pay for his campaign” or “a cynical ploy to look good because he knew he’d never be able to raise that much anyway.”
That is what passes for “fair and balanced” around here.
Nick,
Can I send you a Kleenex box or a few hankies?
Bill,
Having lived through the past two presidential elections, I’m also afraid that this one will be stolen, again.
I’m stunned……With 50 recommendations for state and federal offices, The Post again went with…surprise….43 democrats and only 7 republicans….even with some of the democrats offering nothing regarding their political platform to the paper….I can’t believe the paper is so liberal - what a startling discover!